BNUMBER:  B-258344.2
DATE:  September 19, 1995
TITLE:  Tri-State Motor Transit Company

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Tri-State Motor Transit Company

File:     B-258344.2

Date:     September 19, 1995

DIGEST

A carrier's claim for exclusive use charges based on the sealing of a 
vehicle is denied, even though the government bill of lading (GBL) 
contained notations referring to seals, when:  the carrier issued the 
GBL without including seal numbers, seal ownership or data on whether 
the carrier or shipper applied the seals; neither the government nor 
the carrier could ascertain this information during audit; and the 
carrier did not present other evidence proving that the vehicle was 
sealed.

DECISION

Tri-State Motor Transit Company, requests that we reconsider our 
action of January 31, 1995, dismissing its claim for $348 in 
additional charges for exclusive use of a dromedary container under 
government bill of lading (GBL) C-6,370,022.  Previously, the General 
Services Administration (GSA) denied Tri-State's claim because there 
was no indication that the dromedary had been sealed.  We sustain our 
prior action.

The shipment involved the movement of 69 pounds of detonating fuzes, 
Class C explosives, from Rochester, New York to the Naval Weapons 
Support Center in Crane, Indiana in August 1990.  The GBL contained 
the notation:  "DO NOT BREAK SEALS EXCEPT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY OR UPON 
PRIOR AUTHORITY OF THE CONSIGNEE OR CONSIGNOR . . . IF BROKEN FOR ANY 
REASON APPLY CARRIERS SEALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND NOTIFY THE 
CONSIGNEE OR CONSIGNOR."  Another notation stated that flame or heat 
producing tools can not be used to remove security devices.  However, 
no seal number or other seal information was shown in the block 
provided on the GBL, and GSA was not able to verify that seals were 
applied.

In effect, Tri-State argues that these notations were sufficient 
evidence that seals were applied and that under the circumstances, the 
application of the seals is a request for exclusive use.  It argues 
that one type of authorized security device does not contain serial 
numbers; therefore, the absence of a serial number should not lead to 
a conclusion that no seal was applied.

We will deny a reconsideration request when it essentially restates 
arguments in the original request for review, or presents no evidence 
demonstrating an error in fact or law in the prior decision.  See Eck 
Miller Transportation Corp., B-245385.2, May 20, 1992.  The issue here 
is whether, as a matter of fact, Department of Defense (or Tri-State 
on its behalf) sealed the shipment.  If the shipment had not been 
sealed, we do not reach the issue of whether the seal language quoted 
above constituted a request for exclusive use.  In our initial 
decision, we rejected Tri-State's claim because there was insufficient 
evidence that the shipment had been sealed.  The record still does not 
contain sufficient evidence that the shipment was sealed.

The notations involving seals/security devices are some evidence that 
the shipment was sealed.  But, none of the parties (GSA, the Military 
Traffic Management Command or Tri-State) was able to identify the seal 
number or provide other seal-related information.  Significantly, 
Tri-State issued the GBL without seal numbers and/or required 
information about seal owner and an indication whether Tri-State or 
the government applied the seals.  See paragraph 29-14c of the Defense 
Traffic Management Regulation, DLAR 4500.3, July 31, 1986. Even if the 
Tri-State is correct that some seals do not involve numbers, it is 
still required that the name or initials of the responsible party be 
included in the "Applied By:" area of the GBL.  It is the carrier's 
duty to insure that the GBL is correct in all material respects, and 
when its failure to do so results in an ambiguity that affects the 
charges owed to it, the carrier must prove the correctness of its 
charges.  See Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., B-197298, Sept. 12, 1980, 
80-2 CPD  193.  In our view, the seal notations on the GBL do not 
overcome the ambiguity posed by the missing information.  Perhaps 
Tri-State could have presented other evidence to support the fact that 
this shipment was sealed, but it would have avoided the problem if it 
had properly completed the GBL.

We sustain our prior action.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel